Loading...
1994-01-11 SP '- o ~.~ GIN A l QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 11TH, 1994 INDEX DISCUSSION ITEM HOLLY WHEELER K.D. WHEELER CUSTOMER SIGNS 1. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY> AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 11TH, 1994 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN LINDA HAUSER CHRIS THOMAS FRED CARVIN DAVID MENTER ROBERT KARPELES EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SUSAN CIPPERLY STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI SIGN VARIANCE NO. 99-1993 HC-IA DISCUSSION ONLY HOLLY WHEELER K.D. WHEELER CUSTOMER SIGNS OWNER: LEO F. SWIFT WILLEY CREEK CO., INC. ROUTE 9, LOG JAM FACTORY STORES ON RIGHT HAND SIDE JUST BEFORE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A FREESTANDING, DOUBLE-FACED EIGHT FOOT THREE INCH BY SEVEN FOOT FOUR INCH (8 FT. 3 IN, BY 7 FT. 4 IN.) SIGN THIRTY (30) FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AND SIXTY-TWO AND FIVE TENTHS (&2.5) FEET FROM THE CENTER OF ROUTE 9. WITHIN THE FREESTANDING SIGN, APPLICANT PROPOSES A THIRTY-SIX INCH BY SEVEN FOOT FOUR (3& IN. BY 7 FT. 4 IN.) PANEL WHOSE CONTENT WOULD BE THE NAME OF ONE OF THE PLAZA OCCUPANTS. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM SECTION 140-&B(3) (d) WHICH ALLOWS ONE (1) FREESTANDING SIGN DENOTING THE NAME OF THE SHOPPING CENTER ONLY. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) 11/10/93 TAX MAP NUMBER: 3&-1-34.3 LOT SIZE: 4.5& ACRES SECTION 140-&B(3) (d) ROSEMARY NICOLS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TURNER-The topic for discussion involves reconsideration of a Sign Variance application, File Number 99-1993, K.D. Wheeler Customer Signs Holly Wheeler, for the Log Jam Factory Outlet Stores on Route 9. The applicant has proposed a new sign. This is for discussion. Instead of the two tier sign, it's a one. MR. MARTIN-The other thing that should be noted also is that they are going to remove one of the, I think there's currently three wall directory signs on the building right now. The one farthest to the south, listing three stores, would be removed at the time this is installed. MR. CARVIN-Take a look at the motion, might be appropo? MR. TURNER-If they present it as a new application, they'll have to withdraw that motion, but lets see. Lets hear what they have to say. MS. NICOLS-My name's Rosemary Nicols. I'm an attorney, and I represent the applicants for the sign. We had come here this evening with a certain presentation. We've now, on review of the Ordinance, raised an additional issue, or another issue, and we'd like, particularly since this is a Zoning Board of Appeals, to have your interpretation. To do that analysis, I'd like to introduce John Shafmaster, who is the owner of the company that represents the Mall. JOHN SHAFMASTER MR. SHAFMASTER-By way of apology, I got into this rather late on, and in fact was only reading your Sign Ordinances on the way up on the plane this evening, and Steve Leonard, who is my Site Engineer, has been handling this along with Rosemary, and I may - 1 be in error, but I think there is some confusion, and perhaps we are wrongly before the Board. My people, everyone here had been focusing on shopping center, one freestanding and so forth, under your, I think, is this a page number, 14012, in your Ordinance? MS. NICOLS-Section 140-6 2. MR. SHAFMASTER-It's 14/6(3) (d>, under placement and number, and as I went through this, it went back, and 140-6 pertains to signs for which permits are required, number of regulations, and I then went back further to just your definitions, and under 140-5 0, I don't know if 0 stands for part of the Ordinance, but it says amended 12/27/1977. The te~t on each sign shall be limited to the following, is that, okay? It says the name or assumed name of the owner of the property on which it is located, the te~t on each sign shall be limited to the following: the name or assumed name of the owner of the property on which it is located, and the name of our partnership is Log Jam Factory Stores. The principal business or businesses conducted on the property, this is also allowed on the sign, a brief indication of the products or services available, no vacancy, or vacancy, and price information. Rosemary was completely unaware, and I guess Steve didn't put two and two together until we got on the plane, what we're asking for is to have Levi's name on our sign. Levi's is a tenant that will be occupying appro~imately 84, 8500 plus feet in my mall. Levi's is the single largest tenant, by a factor of two. It will occupy 20 percent of the mall, and they are, I believe, by definition, a principal business or businesses conducted on the property, if they are allowed on the sign, and I would like to just point to the fact that it is our position at this point that a principal business, now, is entitled to be on it, and we will say that, we are prepared to say that Levi's is the principal business, and I, under that statute, I don't think we need to be involved with whether it's a directory sign or not a directory sign, and that in fact I'm entitled to have Levi's name on the sign by definition. We've submitted the Levi's logo. As I'm sure you're aware, they are the largest producers of jeans in the entire world, and that is their logo that goes on zillions of pairs of dungarees every year. It's universally accepted throughout the world as a logo. There's nothing offensive or officious about it, and it is their company logo for their jeans, and I think that, we were remiss, frankly, Steve missed it and Rosemary was not aware of the size of the tenant and the fact that they are now the principal tenant in this mall, and I think that we are mistakenly before the ZBA. STEVE LEONARD MR. LEONARD-Steve Leonard, from Willey Creek. Mr. Chairman, I might add that currently we have a permit for, we had previously applied for and received a permit for the shopping center sign which contains Log Jam Factory Stores, and the Levi's Outlet by Design sign below it, and received a permit, based on that configuration, for the top portion. So with the new, or with our new understanding of the regulations, we would just like to move forward and construct our sign and place it we have received approval for the freestanding sign as it is. MR. TURNER-You kind of threw me amiss, because this never even came up. MS. NICOLS-As I said, we picked this over, and I apologize. up on the plane on the way MR. SHAFMASTER-I apologize. I haven't been involved in this. MR. TURNER-Wait a minute now. What you're saying to us is the sequence of events is that, initially, you went for a directory sign. - 2 - MR. SHAFMASTER-No. Initially, we went for a freestanding sign. MR. TURNER-When? You're not talking this last time. MS. NICOLS-You mean? MR. LEONARD-We're talking originally. when the mall was built. It was back in, around MS. NICOLS-1989. MR. LEONARD-Let me just back up here. This configuration, we went for a sign permit for this configuration, back in November, around November 1st, and we were instructed that we had to go for a variance to obtain the Levi Outlet by Design panel on it. The size of the sign is such that, it's less than 64 square feet, which is what's allowable under a freestanding sign, and at a 25 foot setback, and that area includes the entire panel is less than 64 square feet, okay, and that's what we originally went in for, for a sign permit. We were instructed because we had this Levi's Outlet by Design panel on here, that we needed to go for a variance, MR. SHAFMASTER-Because it was told to us it was a directory sign, which wasn't allowed. MR. LEONARD-Correct, and then we got into the situation of talking about directory signs, which it was really not our intent to do, but that's what stemmed out of it. A lot of people had gotten involved, and I think that there was just some miscommunication, misunderstanding about the situation, and perhaps some misinterpretation of the Ordinance. Personally, obviously, I went directly to the shopping center category, which e~plains that part of it, but back in the general conditions, I think it's fairly clear. MR. SHAFMASTER-I wasn't involved at that point. I'm the owner of the company and that mall, and I wasn't even aware of any of this until all of a sudden we're in a quagmire that we had a directory sign that had been denied, and I just took a different look at it tonight, and I think it's pretty clear, I mean, I hope it' s clear, and I think we're well within in our rights to have the principal business listed on our sign. MS. CIPPERLY-Jim, would the Section on Shopping Centers, though, preclude that? MR. MARTIN-I was going to say, historically, and I'll cite an example, we had in the last several months. The shopping center is a unique animal unto itself. It's separate and apart, and I cite an e~ample to the e~tent, if you notice, in Subsection C, above the letter D, where you just quoted, it says, when a building is, as on a corner lot, a building that is entitled to a second freestanding wall sign, it's been the past interpretation of this Board that a shopping center is such a unique thing that it's not even entitled to that provision. It's separate and apart. In other words, if you have a shopping center on a corner lot, and you're not entitled to a second wall sign, because the regulations for a shopping center stand free and alone, and they're defined separately, and that's been the past way the Board's viewed that, in !!!.y. interpretation of things. Now, they certainly are, they make their own interpretations, but that's the way it's, historically, been viewed. MR. TURNER-Point in case is Dunham's. 149. We didn't let them. They wanted a wall sign on MR. SHAFMASTER-Well, I'm not here to discuss past. MR. TURNER-I know. - 3 - MR. MARTIN-I'm just saying, that's an example. The Center definition has always been looked upon as regulation that applies strictly to shopping centers. Shopping separate MS. NICOLS-But I would note that, in terms of the language in the Ordinance, 140-5, under the General Standards and Regulations, says the following regulations shall apply to all signs, and it doesn't make a distinction for other signs, a~ certainly what you have described there in 0 is what the Supreme Court has, on several occasions, said is a permissible time, place, and manner regulation for a sign. Those are the kinds of things that a municipality may say can be displayed on a sign. MS. CIPPERLY-Each one of those businesses in that shopping center is entitled to a sign, which can say the principal business conducted on that property, if you want to stretch it to that, but. MR. LEONARD-Right. They could do the same thing. They could have a name or assumed name of the owner of the property on their sign, as well, plus their principal business or businesses within that store, plus some indication of products or services available, if they wanted to. It seems to me. MR. SHAFMASTER-And it seems to me that then what happens, you go to the Subsection on specifics on Shopping Centers, and each tenant is allowed to have a sign, one sign, over its door and so forth and so on, which is clearly specific to a multi tenanted shopping center, faci I ity. MR. LEONARD-Plus the Center gets one freestanding sign denoting. MR. SHAFMASTER-And my interest here tonight before the Board is not to cause you complications with how you view future things, or to be opening up Pandora's Box, with regard to other tenants, or, I understand you're in the midst of reformulating your current sign regulations. MR. TURNER-We're looking at it, yes. MR. SHAFMASTER-It was very kind of you to make yourselves available on this short notice to listen to us, and really, our discussions were a little different, obviously, to come before the Board under the multiple, if it was a question of directory signs, which, as a little research we've done recently has proven that the Board has allowed those things, but none of that really is, I don't think, germane. I think that clearly, at least to me, there was a misunderstanding. No one here was aware of how big Levi's was. I mean, they were a 500 foot user out of 40,000 feet, and I had 13 tenants, they were the smallest, and I had 13 tenants that were bigger, but the fact of the matter is, they are the largest tenant I have. They are twice as big as any other tenant, and they occupy more than 20 percent of my space, and they are absolutely a household name and brand name. It's not as if they're John Shafmaster's Dungarees, and I just think that we were mistaken and didn't think this, we, on our side, didn't clarify things to the Board, and I apologize for that, but I do believe that we're entitled. MS. NICOLS-Perhaps to Mr. Martin, when we came before him. MR. MARTIN-Yes, I'm hearing this for the first time, myself. MS. NICOLS-I understand that. MR. SHAFMASTER-You had no idea how big a store they were taking either. MR. MARTIN-No. - 4 - MR. TURNER-No. There was no testimony to. MR. SHAFMASTER-No, not at all. Steve Leonard builds my malls all over the Country, and I'll blame him. He didn't put two and two together. He knew that they were 8500 feet, and I will blame him, but I think that we're wrongly before the Board, because I think that we're just entitled to have one, I think we're just entitled to have one, I think we're entitled to have the principal name or business on our sign, period, and the sign is, we're not asking for any other variances. It's 25 feet away, it's under 64 square feet. We have made a nice sign before. The sign that we anticipate building will be equally nice or better, I'm told. I don't think those are issues with the Town, or at least hope they weren't issues. So, I think, I would hope that we could agree on that, and Mr. Martin could. MR. LEONARD-This may be the case. In fact, we maybe shouldn't be right here in front of the Board, and maybe it goes back to Jim and Jim can make that decision for, I don't know if the Board needs the input or not. MS. NICOLS-But one of the functions of a Zoning Board of Appeals, in addition to granting variances, is to interpret the Ordinance. So, in that sense, we are very appropriately before the Board, if we are presenting an interpretation of the Ordinance that is different than the Board has customarily taken. MR. LEONARD-I have some photos here and some pictures, if that's something you. MR. TURNER-What happens to this thing? MR. SHAFMASTER-That's coming down. It's replacing it. MR. LEONARD-The Factory Store is on the bottom, it's coming off. MR. TURNER-They're going to have their freestanding sign. MR. SHAFMASTER-Correct. MR. TURNER-Log Jam Restaurant. MR. SHAFMASTER-Which they're entitled to, I separate piece of property. guess. They're a MR. TURNER-Yes. They're a separate business. business. They can have that, as of right. They're one MR. SHAFMASTER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Yes, because the property's been recently split, or it was split. MR. SHAFMASTER-It was split, correct. MR. TURNER-It was split. you listen to that tape? Okay. I've got a question. Sue, did MS. CIPPERLY-No, I didn't. MR. TURNER-The problem I have with this is that you guys came to us, I don't know, four years ago maybe, with a directory sign, all right, and it's not in the minutes, but it's my impression that when you came for the directory sign, that the directory sign was in lieu of the freestanding sign, and I haven't heard the tape yet, and she's going to listen to the tape, all right. So if that's the case, then one or the other has got to go. MS. NICOLS-Well, I have read the Town's file on the. - 5 - MR. TURNER-Yes, but we've got it on tape, and the tape identifies that your representative made the statement to the effect that the directory sign was in lieu of a freestanding sign. MS. NICOLS-So, we take the wall..signs down. MR. it. SHAFMASTER-I own the mall, and if you have a tape, I, personally, have never been, and Steve hasn't. lets hear MR. TURNER-We tape all the meetings. MR. SHAFMASTER-That's fine, and I don't know what happened. MR. TURNER-I don't remember either. memory. My memory could be wrong. I'm just kind of going from MR. SHAFMASTER-Okay. MS. NICOLS-But the problem is that in terms of your legal record, and in terms of your decision, whatever it says on the tape is at this point irrelevant, because what matters is what you put in your minutes, and what can be proved. MR. TURNER-I know. I know what you're saying. MS. NICOLS-This is what we have to go by. MR. TURNER-That's fine, but you don't come looking for something when you already stated that you're not going to have a freestanding sign because you've already got a directory sign. Now that's talking out of both sides of your mouth. MS. NICOLS-Understood. We have here the owner of the property who said that he never authorized anyone to say that. Your written record, as provided to me by the Town, does not include that. MR. SHAFMASTER-Mr. Chairman, delighted to. if you have the tape, I'd be MS. CIPPERLY-It's in the little size, and I'd have to get a machine to listen to it, and I just haven't gotten an opportunity to do that. MR. SHAFMASTER-I will represent to you that I had no knowledge of whatever went on up here. That doesn't make it right or wrong, but I think what we have before us. MR. TURNER-All right. Let me ask you this. Rosemary that the one directory sign would come down, but you take the other one down because of the lease agreement. correct? indicated couldn't Is that MR. SHAFMASTER-Yes. MR. TURNER-What's the lease run for, how long? MR. SHAFMASTER-Anywhere, up to ten years, but I'm not empowered to take those down, period, because those are part of. MR. TURNER-I'm not saying you are. quest ion. I'm just asking you a MR. SHAFMASTER-Yes. They can run up to ten years. I would say, typically, we have leases coming for renewal anywhere from three to ten years. The only reason I was, frankly, prepared to offer that, taking down that one directory sign, was conciliatory, in deference to the committee, because my store, I happen to also own the Lev i loft st ore, and I thought if that was a way of bridging the gap, that I willing to do that, because this sign - 6 was very important to us. MR. KARPELES-Do we have a map of the overall thing, which signs we're talking about? I think with all we've got here, this is very poorly presented. so we know the people MR. LEONARD-Okay. I'm sorry. Route 9, we have the Dunham mall here, the Route 9 mall here. The Log Jam Factory St ores. We have, to the south of, well, to the bottom, we would have the Route 9 Mall. To the north, we have the Dunham Factory Outlet, and in the center there, where the Log Jam Factory Store is facing Route 9, we have, up in the upper right hand corner, you see the Log Jam Restaurant, and to the left of that, you see where the existing pylon sign is located, and this is the one that shows in the photo that the Chairman has. MR. SHAFMASTER-That's on the Log Jam property, is that correct? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. LEONARD-The Log Jam Restaurant property. MR. SHAFMASTER-Before the restaurant was sold, Roy Tonneson, one of the owners of the restaurant, was a partner, he still is a partner in the mall, but, this was a long time ago, but he was the owner of the restaurant, and that's why we worked out, I think, under the existing Ordinances, the one sign for the two, and so forth and so on. Now, I understand he sold the restaurant. Yes, I believe that's true. MR. TURNER-I heard the same thing. MR. SHAFMASTER-Yes, I restaurant anymore. think he has. He doesn't own the some sign is coming down. What sign is MR. KARPELES-You said coming down? MR. LEONARD-Under our application, that sign will come down, just the Factory Stores, okay, and our new freestanding sign will go up in this area, with a 30 foot setback from the east side of the sidewalk, back to the first post, and it will be in the pro~imity of the flag poles. MR. SHAFMASTER-And I think, Steve, I don' t know if you were involved in this, in the sidewalk and things, too, that when the Town changed their Ordinances or wanted sidewalk connections and so forth and so on, I think that my mall was one of the first people that were very proactive and supportive of upgrading and doing that. I think there were others, as I recall, that were not so happy about spend i ng the money to do that, but I do know that we were very support of that change to upgrade things and to facilitate what the Town was looking for, and I think we've tried. I don't know. I think we've tried to be a good neighbor here in the Town. MR. LEONARD-We've put together what I think will be a nice slgn, sand blasted wood sign. It'll be similar, with the large timbers, as the existing Log Jam Restaurant sign. We've tried to make it real good looking for the area, and not overpowering, just something big enough that we can identify the mall and the one tenant. Obviously, with the 64 square foot allotment that we could have, we could put a much larger Log Jam Factory Stores on it, but we feel that that just wouldn't be that inviting to everybody that's got to dri ve by and look at it every day, but yet big enough for people driving by that they can identify it, and, Two, with the Levi's sign, I think the Logo and typeset on it is of sufficient size that it shouldn't be, and also the name recognition won't be so small that people will have to take a second look or really squint to figure out what the sign says, as 7 - some of the other directory signs around the Town appear to be. MR. SHAFMASTER-And clearly people are going to be Leyi's. looking for MR. LEONARD-So if anything it may even help to clarify any traffic issues, because they will know where that store is. We're, obviously, hoping that a lot of people will go there to shop. MR. TURNER-This is the old sign? MR. LEONARD-That's correct. MR. TURNER-This is the new sign? MR. LEONARD-Well, this application that you have in your hands there is an application that I have put together for tonight's meeting, prior to Jonathan reading through the Ordinance, and I actually have both of them incorporated in there. I prefer to have the sign with the intermediate bar on it, which I've labeled Option A, because I think it's a better looking sign. I think, functionally, it's better. It's less confusing to the passer by. MR. TURNER-Why don't you call this Levi's Factory Outlet Stores instead of Log Jam Factory Outlet Stores? MR. SHAFMASTER-We would probably have to go to Levi's national headquarters, and they wouldn't let us do it, because it couldn't be associated with these. I'm not driving this, gentlemen, Levi's is driving this. MR. MENTER-I think that's the issue, constitutes, or whether or not that is whether that's what you're advertising. whether or a primary not that business, MS. CIPPERLY-The definition of principal business don't know that you can have a principal business in a cent er. is what, I shopping MR. LEONARD-It would certainly be the biggest business. MS. CIPPERLY-I'd consider it, if it was more than 50 percent, maybe, or 60 percent, maybe that's a principal business, like Dunhams used to be mostly part of, they probably took up two thirds of their buildin~, and then they had a couple of little sock stores and things, maybe then you could say, yes, the Dunhams is a principal business. By even 20 percent, I wouldn't be convinced that that's a principal business. MR. LEONARD-I Levi's stores. think, technically, we're over 30 percent There's 8500 square feet, and we have. for MS. CIPPERLY-I'm trying to would be saying right now. that. anticipate what our Town Attorney I'm not sure he'd be convinced by MR. SHAFMASTER-Well, would he be the one that would interpret the Ordinance? MR. TURNER-No. MS. NICOLS-No, it would be the Zoning Board. MR. TURNER-The Zoning Board. MR. SHAFMASTER-I'm not certain that the intent is to say over 50 percent, because if it did, I think it would be, it wouldn't say or businesses, principal business £!: businesses, and this is maybe something that you all want to deal with as you change your - 8 regulations to clarify this point, going ahead, in the futur-e, but to me, when you say principal business or businesses, it's very difficult to have two businesses that are both over 50 percent. Because that's more than 100 percent of the site. So, r think it's pretty clear that principal business means the largest and most significant, that you're allowed to have that on the sign. MR. CARVIN-A freestanding sign denoting the name cent er. of the shopping MR. TURNER-Period. That's what it says. MR. CARVIN-Shall be permitted. MS. NICOLS-Well, how do you then reconcile the language in 140-5, where it says the following? MR. CARVIN-That's fine, for other signs, e~cept for a shopping center, it says only the name of the shopping center. MR. TURNER-We got in to this before. MR. CARVIN-It's sort of like, you can park anywhere's Town, e~cept in these zones. So what's the difference? ln the MR. MARTIN-If you Plaza could then Steinbach's Plaza. do this, say, the you're saying, like, the Northway Northway Plaza could be called MR. CARVIN-Could we have all six of these categories? Could we have, at the baby shop, they're having a sale on carriages for $4.95. So could we put a sign up there for $4.95? And can we have No Vacancy because we've got an e~tra one? It becomes absurd. I think this Ordinance, and Section D, where it outlines shopping centers, is very clear. It denotes the name of a shopping center. If your shopping center is named Levi's, boom, there you go. You're out of the woods. A Levi's shopping center, I've got no problems. MR. MARTIN-I too, because clear, well problem, and it's just. think what, this muddies the water a little bit, we came into this meeting, I think, with a pretty defined relatively simple approach to solving this now this is a whole new twist on this that I think MR. CARVIN-And I think if we start twisting that, and we're going to go right away from the very first purpose, which basically says to prevent confusion with regards to traffic lights, signs and signals to promote maximum safety. It goes right against the very, the very first paragraph, because it says right here, the purpose of the Chapter is to promote and protect the public health, welfare and safety, by regulating e~isting and proposed advertising, outdoor advertising signs, and signs of all type. It is intended to provide for ma~imum visibility, to prevent unreasonable distraction of operators of motor vehicles, to prevent confusion with regards to the traffic lights, signs or signals, to promote ma~imum safety, comfort, and well being of the users of the highway, to protect property values, to create a more attractive economic and business climate, to enhance and protect the physical appearance of the community, to preserve the scenic and natural beauty of designated areas, and to provide for a more enjoyable and pleasing community, and I think if we start messing around with this. MR. MARTIN-I don't mean, and I think everybody recognizes me as being very reasonable in this whole process, and I've been trying to be as accommodating as possible, and I'll just cut this right off here. My capacity as Zoning Administrator, I would interpret that this is a plaza sign and should be the name of the plaza - 9 - only. Now, if they want to appeal that interpretation, I'll put that on the record right now. If they want to appeal that interpretation, they can go to this Board next month, to do that. Shorten the discussion here, maybe. MS. NICOLS-Would~it be possible, then, to have an explanation for why the Meadowbrook Plaza, with sign, was constructed in January of 1993, which, at least as we viewed it last week, has the name of the plaza and five signs, why was that granted a permit? MR. TURNER-That wasn't anything with that. granted here, though. We didn't do MR. MARTIN-That's a matter that's been taken up, you can ask Paul Dusek. I've approached him about that matter, and enforcement proceeding's going to be initiated on that. That is an illegal sign as it stands. That was, quite honestly, it was a mistake on my part, because the way that permit application came through for that, it was said as changeable copy, which changeable copy is permitted, and what they did is they wound up coming in, and they put everybody's name on there, and that's been the confusion, and now that is an illegal sign. MS. NICOLS-Okay, because as we went through and identified the various malls and the various signs that were permitted, we inquired of the secretary and were informed that of all the signs that we had collected information on, that one, which is one of the two newest ones, simply had a permit, and we were very confused about how that could be permissible, and ours was objectionable, or illegal. MR. MARTIN-That came in as then in the application changeable copy, and they go i ng to be used for, and and that's an illegal sign, a, it just sa i d Meadowbrook PI aza, and it had in this space here, just had never said as to what that was now they've listed new tenants there, as it stands. MS. NICOLS-Well, I think at this point, because we are under a constraint, in terms of a series of transactions that have taken place which have pressed us, which don't press the Board, but that compel us to make a prompt decision. I think it would be useful for us, at this point, to have a discussion. We've gotten your sense. We've raised the issue of the as of right, and I think we've gotten a sense from the Board that you're uncomfortable with that, and I respect that decision. I haven't necessarily acquiesced in it yet, but I respect it. We've also gotten an indication from Mr. Martin that if he were asked to rule on an application that said we're as of right under 140-5, he would say no, in which case we'd have to come to the Board at the ne~t Board meeting. I think it would then be useful to us, since we've all come out, and one of the things that we expected to do was to have a discussion about the revised sign, and the revisions that we've made, that perhaps it would be useful for us to actually have that discussion, in addition to the one that we sort of sprung on you. As I said, there was no malice associated with that. It was just a collection of information that we didn't have. MR. SHAFMASTER-This was not a Machiavellian plot, gentlemen. I read this thing on the plane on the way up here tonight. MR. MARTIN-I appreciate your position, but I. MR. SHAFMASTER-Well, how does this work? working with this? I'm unfamiliar with MS. NICOLS-All right. Let me tell you how ~ understand it. The Town's Attorney and the Board may interpret it differently. If we came in to Mr. Martin tomorrow morning, if we come in at any time prior to the next Board meeting, and we said to Mr. Martin, - 10 - we'd like a permit, because we believe we're entitled to the permit under 140-5 0, and Mr. Martin said to us what he just said, which is that in my interpretation, that's not what the Ordinance means, I will not issue you the permit, if you want to challenge that decision, in terms of my interpretation of the Ordinance, you must raise that issue with the Zoning Board of Appeals, which is where we are now. So that would be officially done at the next meeting of the Board. So we come back to the same body in either event, and there's nothing in the rules of either the Zoning Boards of Appeals in general or the law in New York State about signs or about municipal process that says we can't make an inconsistent application. So that we could come before the Board, and we could say, we're interested in the following two things. We believe this is our legal position. We believe this is the appropriate way for the Ordinance to be interpreted, but if you don't agree with us, we also wish you to address this issue. It doesn't mean we're abandoning it, but it does mean that since you're all here, we'd like to have you input on the proposal, if that's acceptable to my client. MR. SHAFMASTER-I guess I'd like to look to the Board, and I don't know how you do this, but, it seems to me, and I'm just trying to find a practical solution to a situation that I think that logical people can solve, okay. It seems to me, and what Steve has addressed so far with us, that the Board has, on occasion given, even directory signs, to people, and even recently,.. Now, I don't view this as an all out directory sign, by any stretch of the imagination. I mean, it is a single purpose sign, as far as I'm concerned, and Mr. Carvin read your preliminary by- laws, or whatever, to your Sign Ordinance, and I don't, at least in ~ mind, the sign that we are proposing doesn't in any way violate any of those things. I don't think it's a public safety hazard, I think, to the contrary. MR. CARVIN-Not to interrupt you, but I think I'd like to read the motion that was made, and I think if you can present substantially different evidence than what the heart of the motion is, then I think we can move forward. The motion, which was made by Mrs. Eggleston, who is not here tonight, reads as follows: "Applicant is seeking relief from Section 140-6B(3) (d>, which allows one freestanding sign denoting the name of the shopping center only. Applicant was seeking to add an additional sign designating one specific store, namely Levi's Outlet by Design. There are no special circumstances or conditions applying to the land or signs which do not apply generally to the whole neighborhood. They're all built basically the same way in that area, so there are no special circumstances. I believe there would be an adverse effect on the neighborhood character, in that it would set a precedent and others would be requesting the freestanding sign with additional stores denoted. There are other feasible alternatives, and the applicant has not demonstrated an economic hardship would be created by the denial of this variance." So, I think that these are the issues that the previous motion, which was turned down, and again, I guess. MR. SHAFMASTER-Is economic hardship a, I didn't realize economic hardship was a valid argument. MS. NICOLS-It is a valid argument, that should be described. This is didn't know about previously. and I think that, perhaps, something that Mrs. Wheeler MS. CIPPERLY-Well, benefit to the applicant is. MR. LEONARD-We have basically three items, then, as it was described in the motion. One of them, I believe the site does, the parcel does have a hardship, in that it is very narrow and very long, which is unlike the abutting properties, or the other properties in that area, which has created a poor location for visibility of that rear section of the Center. It's literally - 11 - not visible, unless you're directly in line with the corridor, looking back to that rear section, and that's where Levi's is, in that section back there. The second part of the motion referred to, it would be a detriment to the neighborhood. It says it would appear that this sign would, and somebody's put in "not" be detrimental. MS. NICOLS-That was from the Department of Community Development, in their initial presentation to the Board. MR. LEONARD-So she's saying it neighborhood. would not be detrimental to the MR. CARVIN-Now who's that? MR. TURNER-Staff Notes. MR. CARVIN-I'm talking the motion here. MS. NICOLS-Right. Understood. Now she says that it would be an adverse effect in that it would set a precedent and others would be requesting a freestanding sign with additional stores denoted. MR. MARTIN-Something I'd like to just remind, for your consideration, is that benefit to the applicant is not a bad thing. It is allowed, and it is something that should be considered, but it has to be weighed against any detriment to the neighborhood, and providing that a balance can be struck, an applicant can claim benefit, and you can consider that. It's not a negative. I mean, if he, apparently there's some, quite honestly I guess there's quite a large sum of money that will, there's a sale about to occur here. MR. SHAFMASTER-There's a pending sale on the mall, and I'm sure you're familiar with the fact that malls are sold on a multiple of rents, and with Levi's in, as opposed to out, there's a difference of one million dollars, and I would say that that is a significant economic impact and certainly a detriment. If I sell the mall without Levi's, I do not payoff my mortgage. Levi's will not come without their name on that sign. It's all documented and signed, sealed, and delivered, and there it is, plain and simple, and I'm really coming before the Board, and I live in a small town in New Hampshire. I mean, candidly, I'm not trying to set precedent in your town. I don't think that our sign, in any way, compares to some of the things that people, we're being very forthright about it. I think the sign is tasteful, and I certainly believe, and maybe we have to change our motion in front of you and shift and say that this is a 145- 5, and if you all are uncomfortable with having ~ name of the largest or the principal or however you want to define it tenant in a mall on that main sign going down the road for the future, then I'm certain that this Board and the powers that be could address that, but I'm really imploring you to be reasonable. I think we're all reasonable people. This sign is not something that's going to have panels in and panels out. Levi's will be a long term tenant. I can tell you they're in a bunch of my other malls around the Country, and they are a good tenant. They're a good corporate citizen, and I know these are tricky issues that you all have to face, but I just don't quite understand, and I am very prepared, personally, to take down one of those directory signs, and my store people, which is another division of the company, are going to go nuts, because Leviloft is a good store. We've been here a long time, and if I take our name off that directory sign, Leviloft will lose some business. That's for sure. Someone will go by and not see not see Leviloft. MR. LEONARD-The third motion, I believe, was a detriment to the neighborhood. To the north we have the Dunham Factory Outlet, which has a directory sign, and I think it's an illuminated sign. It's kind of a hodge podge of three signs. - 12 - MS. NICOLS-To refresh your recollection, that's the Dunham sign that is immediately to the north. MR. LEONARD-And that has received a variance to be installed, and to the south we have the Route q Mall, which apparently, a year ago, or within the last two years, received a variance to have it ins t a II ed, wh i ch i s a I i g h t e d s i g n . MS. NICOLS-That's the one immediately to the south, has a variance. That received a variance in 1990. the two signs that bracket our property. and that one So those are MR. MARTIN-It was Paul Dusek's recommendation, he couldn't be here tonight, but he wanted me to convey this information. I told Ted prior to the meeting, he said he thought the best way to handle this would be to treat the application as a new application, rather than a modification to the original request, and that way you remove the requirement for the unanimous vote to approve a modification, and then should you decide to grant the variance in that regard, you need a unanimous vote to approve a variance on a modified application. So, he thought the best thing would be, treat this as a new application come February. MS. NICOLS-Do they come February or January? MR. MARTIN-Well, we have to have advertising. fi ve days. You have to have MS. NICOLS-So, when I discussed it with Mr. Dusek, it was his opinion that we could lawfully be on the January meeting of the Board. That is that we could file an application with Mr. Martin tomorrow and that we could, if it's the sense of this meeting that that's the proper way to pursue this, we could file for a new application for the January meeting. MR. MARTIN-It strikes me as that's the cleanest way to approach it. That's up to the Board. MR. CARVIN-I don't think we can address these because we don't have a motion. This was the issues that were raised when the motion was turned down. I believe that they were submitting at that point, what, two separate signs? MR. TURNER-Yes, preferred one. just one. this is See when I what they want now. This looked at it the other night, is it the was MR. CARVIN-See, because there was some public opposition, too. MS. NICOLS-There is opposition. Both of them are there. MR. TURNER-I know, but the only one I saw was the other one. I didn't see this one. MS. NICOLS-All right. MR. LEONARD-I know we kind of came at this a little bit, we got. MS. NICOLS-Sort of e~cited about the other option. might be a neat solution. We thought it MR. LEONARD-Yes, which would save everybody a lot of time, but I'm thoroughly prepared to go through the application, start from the beginning, quickly, and run through it. I'm not sure who might not be up to speed on it. I kind of assumed everybody was up to speed, but I'd be more than happy to run through it from the beginning quickly, in a few minutes. MR. MARTIN-I'd rather refrain from getting into the guts of the application. - 13 - MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Yes, if we're not going to vote on it. motion. There's no MR. MARTIN-I think the decision just simply has to be made tonight, do you want to entertain a new application or treat this as a modification, or do anything at all. MR. THOMAS-It's just, I think they should go application. Present it, the same people that were last time are going to be there this time. Namely Mr. for a there Kenny. new the MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. SHAFMASTER-I know Kenny's name from way back when, presume this is purely self-interest, and I don't think really is what we're talking about in front of this Board. and I that MR. LEONARD-Curiously, the sign that now exists which was approved and has not been attacked as being a non-conforming sign or anything like that, says Log Jam Restaurant and Factory Stores. So there is a principal sign on a shopping center with two names on it. MR. TURNER-One piece of property, at that time. MS. NICOLS-Yes. MR. LEONARD-Okay, but it's now two pieces of property. Lets go back. If that was one piece of property that had two businesses on it, neither one of them has changed. You had a shopping mall, and that was on the sign, and you had a restaurant, and that was on the sign. So the principal business or businesses were both on the sign. MR. TURNER-That's fine, but I don't know how that got there. MR. SHAFMASTER- I underst and, and I' m not try i ng to be argumentative, but all I'm saying is we're asking now that the piece of property has been subdivided is really for the same sign in a different place. MR. TURNER-I fully understand what you're saying, but I'm saying to you that that section of the Ordinance denotes shopping center, and that's what it says. MR. LEONARD-Does it say only, only? a shopping center only, the name MR. TURNER-It identifies shopping center, one freestanding sign denoting the name of the s~opping center shall be permitted. MR. LEONARD-So we have to have the name of the shopping center? MR. TURNER-Absolutely. MR. SHAFMASTER-But I don't think it, it doesn't say that something else besides a shopping center name cannot be on the sign, and I think that's where your entitled to go back to your major 0, Sub 0 under 140-5. MS. CIPPERLY-Jim, was there a case where somebody wanted to list all the tenants, rather than the name of the shopping center? MR. MARTIN-Dunhams is like that. Dunhams is not really a factory store, Dunhams shoes, Dunhams Footwear are just individual names. MR. sign TURNER-They came and they on the building because got a variance for a directional all the stores weren't identified. - 14 You couldn't see them from the road. We granted that variance for that directory sign. That's why you got it. Otherwise, you wouldn't have gotten it. MR. SHAFMASTER-That may very well be. MR. TURNER-You could have had a freestanding sign, denoting the name of the shopping center, but you didn't do that. MS. NICOLS-But if you look at the actual text of the discussion, when that was granted, the rationale for approving the sign was that the Log Jam Factory Stores restaurant were looking for three, four foot by six foot signs on the front of the building. This is ten percent of the permitted signage that they could have based on twelve stores. They could have twelve foot by one hundred foot square foot wall signs. They have twelve one foot by four foot signs. They're asking for their three four foot by six foot additional. This would be a minimum request. The reason they want them on the front of the building is that the store faces north. The traffic flowing north cannot see most of the building. There is no way of knowing what stores contained in the shopping center from the south. This is the practical difficulty. The configuration of this lot allows the present situation of the building. The proposed Log Jam logo will not be included in this approval. There is a stipulation to the variance. They have requested the three, four foot by six foot wall directory signs. This may be what you have recalled from the minutes. This variance is limited to this, and will apply even if more stores are added to the shopping center. What names that are listed are up to the owner, but no more size and signs would be allowed. So how is that situation different than the one we're proposing? MS. CIPPERLY-Was that the name of the plaza at the time? MS. NICOLS-It's never been other than the Log Jam Factory Stores Limited Partnership. MS. CIPPERLY-What was the name of the Plaza, though, at the time? MR. TURNER-Log Jam Factory Stores/Restaurant. MS. NICOLS-So the name hasn't changed. MS. CIPPERLY-You've sold the property. properties now. There's two different MS. NICOLS-Now it's been divided. MR. SHAFMASTER-We have the Log Jam Factory Stores. Log Jam Restaurant. They have the MS. CIPPERLY-But at one time, they were all. MR. SHAFMASTER-No. There was never the same ownership. There was always two completely separate ownerships. It's never been, there's no..from that point of view. We shared a sign, basically, and I was not aware of the intricacies of the situation, and we are taking, proposing, will definitely take down the Factory Stores from underneath the Log Jam restaurant sign. In fact, we paid for that sign. MR. TURNER-The signs that occupied this building before, were they on the directory signs, the store in the back where Levi's is going to go? MR. SHAFMASTER-They were on the directory sign, and we have offered, and Levi's will not be on, there will be no duplication, they will not be on the directory sign. - 15 - MS. CIPPERLY-Has Levi's asked to be the only tenant on the freestanding sign? Have they wanted exclusive rights to that? MR. SHAFMASTER-I don't know the answer to that question. I could tell you right now, and I don't know how we, if you want to make it part of the minutes, we can make it, obviously, part of the minutes. We will never be back to us to have someone else included on it, and the only reason I'm here is because Levi's is saying, we won't come unless we're on that sign, and that's where we want to be, and that's where we are everywhere we go. MR. TURNER-Okay, but let me tell you this. Blockbuster came here, and they said to us, in the Factory Outlet mall down where Sears used to be, if we can't have yellow and blue, we're not going there. That was when they had to be sized, color coordinated and everything. That was a different story then. They've changed that since, but we denied that one. MR. SHAFMASTER-Well, I don't, I hope, at least I mean, I don't think that Levi's is, I know that Blockbuster really gets out there and they shoot at you with their signs, and I think this is fully integrated into our sign, and really it's no different than the Log Jam Restaurant and Outlet sign that's there now. I mean, conceptually, it's the same kind of sign. MR. MARTIN-I still think that the principal balance here that's got to be arrived at in each of the Board member's minds is, we have a benefit stated by the applicant. He has a large monetary benefit here, and we have a detriment to the neighborhood. How do these weigh against each other? MS. NICOLS-I guess one of the things that puzzles me is, given the history of the Board, in terms of granting some degree of sign variance for almost every mall, certainly most of the malls along Route 9, how this one is conceived as detriment. I mean, we are asking for a single tenant on the sign. We are not asking for 12 tenants on the sign, and certainly the Board has within its power the authority to say, one sign is acceptable. Twelve signs is unacceptable. You have said that with the proposal for the plaza. MS. CIPPERLY-The one to the south on the same side of the road. MR. TURNER-The Lake George Plaza. MS. NICOLS-The Lake George Plaza, with this very obno~ious sign. I'm an advocate. I'm permitted to say it. That's the one with the twelve, the long one. This one, yes. Thank you. That one. They applied for that, and were denied, and I think it is perfectly feasible for the Board to make a distinction. MR. TURNER-They were denied because, I'll tell you why, because all the businesses there are very visible from the road, very visible. Yours is not. That's why we (TAPE TURNED> MR. LEONARD-And that's why we're coming back. We found a tenant who has said, look, if you get me a visibility on that front sign, I will come into your center, and we're trying to do it tastefully. John has offered to take down one of the directory signs that's up there. It's probably comparably sized to what this one on the sign would be. The directory signs that we have are visible, but you have to know they're there. They're under the canopy. They're kind of hidden in under, to a certain degree, and they're not as visible. MR. TURNER-I made the argument at the meeting that night that they wouldn't see them, but nobody would listen. MR. SHAFMASTER-After we put the sidewalk in, people walking by do see them. - 16 - MR. TURNER-They see them now, but before they didn't. MR. CARVIN-Ted, when was the Log Jam moved back? Didn't they move that whole building? MR. TURNER-Yes. They moved it back before he built his place. MR. CARVIN-When was that? Do you know? MR. SHAFMASTER-Yes. That was when we built our first phase. That was seven years ago. MR. TURNER-Seven, eight years ago, right. MR. SHAFMASTER-Did they put it in back? MR. TURNER-They moved it back. MS. CIPPERLY-Now it' s in back of the restaurant. MR. TURNER-It was right up at the road. MR. SHAFMASTER-That was Peter Veile's deal. MR. TURNER-Do you see what that more signs. motion says at the bottom? No MR. CARVIN-Yes. It seems pretty e~plicit. MR. SHAFMASTER-But if I may suggest, though, we're giving up a sign. We're giving up the Factory Store sign that's already permitted, that we have here now, that says Log Jam Factory Stores. We're giving that one up, the main sign, the pylon sign that's there. MS. CIPPERLY-In terms of the benefit to the applicant here, I think the Board had, where it's monetary, it's reminiscent, I think, of the Carte variance, where the Board attempted to grant a variance on that basis, which was overturned by the Park Agency, who said that monetary was literally not an adequate. MR. CARVIN-I think we have a bigger challenge, Steinbachs. MR. TURNER-Steinbachs. They came for a sign. MR. CARVIN-I think if you measure it, they probably sit even farther off the road, but that's, and I have to be convinced, I guess. MS. NICOLS-I would suggest that on the point you were making about the difference between the Adirondack Park Agency, and the Adirondack Park Agency overruled a proposal that you made, that the Adirondack Park Agency's provisions for granting approvals are quite different than the discretion of the Zoning Board of Appeals in granting a variance, and so that I'm sure that however the regulation, or the statement of the APA may have been perceived, that what they were doing was denying the proposal under their authority for undue adverse impact, which is not a variance provision, but is part of their statute, and that what you are authorized by the State of New York to consider is practical difficulty. I mean, this is functionally an area variance issue. This is not a use variance, and there really is a substantial distinction there. The two agencies are entitled to look at the same proposal in quite different ways. Each of them is obliged to look at it, consistent with their own requirements, and your requirements are set forth in the discussion we just had, in terms of your three primary elements, that is the impact upon the neighborhood, the balancing process, the special circumstances, the degree of change. - 17 - ~. MR. CARVIN-I don't want to leave you overcome these, these were motion, based on the meeting at discussion. you with the impression that if the areas that denied that last that point, in other words, the MS. NICOLS-I criteria in Ord i nance. understand that, but your Statute, both in I'm the looking at T own Law, the and review in the MR. CARVIN-But, again, I just want to be sure that you're. MS. NICOLS-Aware of these decisions. MR. CARVIN-Yes. I don't want you to whiz, we've got just three issues, fourth or fifth issue pops up. come in and think that, gee and then all of a sudden a MS. NICOLS-Sure. No. We're aware that in a new application, the review criteria will be the Town Law, and the Town of Queensbury Ordinance for the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. CARVIN-Yes. My feeling is I think they should submit a new application, and then we'll take it right back to Square One, and we'll listen to the whole arguments again, and that's not to say that the Board doesn't come down to the same areas here, that's the weighing aspect. MR. SHAFMASTER-The si~ of you that are here, I don't know if it's out of order. Can I get a sense, I mean, there's no sense in my wasting your time and my time if we come back in three weeks, and maybe you'd like to caucus or something and give me a sense of how to proceed. I'm a pragmatist, gentleman, and ladies. If, in fact, you're not comfortable with this, and. MR. CARVIN-I don't think that's a very fair question of us, because we have not got an application. Again, we reviewed this application back in October or November, whenever it was. I don't think it would be fair to you for me to give you an assessment, how I feel at this moment, because if this doesn't come up for another couple of weeks, there may be whole issues that are raised during the public hearing that may sway us one way or the other. MR. SHAFMASTER-That's true, but I would say that if your own opinion now is that you're not in favor of our getting this. MR. CARVIN-I wouldn't hang my hat on it. I wouldn't give you that answer, I couldn't, because I don't know. I don't have all the facts. There is a procedure that we go through when we hear these things. I've come in, I've read these things. I've come in on case histories convinced that I'm going to vote one way, but then sitting at the public hearing and listening to all the arguments, have been convinced otherwise. So I don't think it's fair to you for me to say yes, I think you're going to have a great chance of getting this thing passed. I just don't think that that's a fair question to the Board, because we do not have a. . MR. TURNER-It's not fair to us. It's not fair to you. MR. SHAFMASTER-Okay. Well, I had really hoped to make some headway, and I appreciate your listening to us this evening. I guess we have a case pending with the Court which, I don't like to resort to that kind of stuff because it's e~pensive, and I found that reason is usually the best way out, and compromise. I am not being driven, if I had time, and didn't have a time constraint on this sale, and I will tell you right now, there is also a time constraint on this sale, and I wouldn't have resorted, I'm just telling you, to the legal remedy. I don't really, I guess I'm a little, not confused, I'm disappointed. I - 18 think that Boards, at least here as opposed to California, the east as opposed to the west, I thought were pretty pragmat ic, and tried to find solutions to things. I think that, if in fact we do prevail legally, if we get denied, and we will approach you again. Now, the case is before the judge, and if he rules In between, I guess if he rules in my favor, I go ahead, either one of us can appeal. I don't know how that whole process works, but I would say that, this I do know. If he does rule in our favor, and it becomes a First Amendment issue, and this is a whole other issue as to the powers of Boards, that you all are then stuck with a precedent that you can't get around, and you're powers will be severely limited as to how you shape your signage in the future. I have no vested interest in being the guy that they call the Shafmaster signage situation in Lake George, or in Queensbury County. I really don't, and with all due respect, I think this is a very straight-forward, pragmatic solution, and I'm really beseeching you to make a reasonable decision. I believe that without any question we are going to prevail in the Court s. There is abso I ut e 1 y no doubt about that, and now, tonight, in reading your Ordinance, I'm àlmost believing that the judge will rule on that alone, in your own Ordinance, and find the easy way out, because it's pretty clear, and I just, I know you have a lot of weighing of things to go back and forth and so forth and so on. I'm not trying to be a guy that sets precedent in this Town, and I think there's a very easy way that we can all solve this problem, and it's a nice sign. I mean, with all due respect to some of the signs I see on this in these posters, they leave a lot to be desired. We spent a lot of money on our signage. We could give our tenants a lot more bang for the buck, in terms of impact of signs, and we don't. We build nice malls. We build them out of wood. We do a lot of things that are aesthetically pleasing because that's the way we do things, and it really is to the detriment of the Town, and I'm unhappy, I guess, because I think I'm a good citizen and we tried to be a good citizen in this Town, whether it's the sidewalks, or the other things that our Company has done, and when you come forth with what is really a no brainer, gentlemen and ladies, something that should be granted, we're taking off that. There's a precedent there. I'm even offering to take my own name off the Leviloft sign. That won't be on the table. MR. KARPELES-What are you looking for? Do you want tonight? Is that what you're looking for? us to vote MR. SHAFMASTER-Well, this gentleman doesn't seem to want to give us an indication. I guess I'm looking for an indication, if it's no, then I don't have to come up here anymore, and we just go the legal way. MR. KARPELES-I think he e~plained to you e~actly the way we feel. We'd like to hear the public hearing. We'd like to hear what the people, public has to comment. MR. here, SHAFMASTER-I think there has been public hearings. but there was a public hearing, and the only. I wasn't MR. KARPELES-And it was turned down. MR. LEONARD-They're saying it was turned here solely tonight to make a decision rehear the new application. down then, on whether and they're or not to MR. SHAFMASTER-I appreciate the chance to be reheard. MR. LEONARD-I guess that's really what we're looking for, is you've agreed to rehear our case at the ne~t meeting. MS. NICOLS-So, we'll be back in 10 days. discussion again. We'll get to have this - 19 - MR. KARPELES-I hope you organize it better when you present it the next time than it was tonight. MS. NICOLS-Well, we sort of surprised ourselves, because we thought we had a way to solve this problem, and we had walked in here with one expectation, to make the presentation. MR. MARTIN-Ted, I'd close this out, a withdrawal of the old application, then. Do you want to accept and then formally resolve? MS. NICOLS-Well, I don't think we need to do that, because that's now before the judge. MR. CARVIN-I think we have an argument that there's a substantial change if they should resubmit a new variance. I mean, they're not submitting, necessarily, the same. MR. MARTIN-Well, I want to be clear, because this is going to be viewed ne~t time as a new application, and not simply a rehearing of the old one, where you'd need a unanimous vote. That's what you're all understanding. MR. TURNER-Let s po II the Board. a new application? Do you feel comfortable hearing MR. THOMAS-I certainly do. MISS HAUSER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Yes. MR. KARPELES-Yes. MR. MENTER-Yes. MR. SHAFMASTER-Are there any things that the Board would like to see in our new application? MR. CARVIN-I think what I've tried to tell you is that the issues that knocked it down the last time need to be fully addressed, not limiting it to these, and then it becomes a matter, because there's issues, if you address these issues, that the public may want to address, and that we don't know. MS. CIPPERLY-Have we stated here tonight that they're going to be on the ne~t Zoning Board meeting? MR. TURNER-You're going to have to advertise it. I think if we go with their application, we'll have to go with the second one, even though it's Harris Bay, we'll have to go with the second meeting, or else we'll have to have another special meeting just for this one. MS. CIPPERLY-That's why I was asking, when you said, ne~t Zoning Board meeting, were you talking about the 19th or the 26th. MR. CARVIN-I think, wherever you can squeeze it got to be advertised. legally. It' s MR. TURNER-It'll have to be the tail end of the month. hear it the 19th. We can't MR. SHAFMASTER-Thank you very much. I appreciate it. MR. CARVIN-Does Paul have a, what's his feel on this, just out of curiosity? MR. MARTIN-He didn't think he had too good of a Now I think he thinks he's got a 50, 50 chance. too good at first. case going in. It didn't look - 20 - MS. CIPPERLY-Well, at first he didn't realize that they'd already been given the relief for the directory sign on the end of the building, and he thought that they were asking for the same thing that Dunhams had. MR. TURNER-That's the only problem I had with it is that they want, if they take the directory signs down and put up the freestanding signs, that's fine. I asked him that, but he said it was in the lease. They couldn't. They'll take the one down, but again, even though it is in the minutes, I wish we could get those tapes and listen to them. That resolution says no more signs. No more. That motion for the directory sign says no more signs. It doesn't designate what signs, but it says no more signs. MS. CIPPERLY-Yes. I'll listen to that tomorrow. the Harris Bay advertising done today. I had to get MR. MENTER-I'm sure that if we heard this, and this was granted to them, we'd have similar legal problems coming from other places. MR. CARVIN-Absolutely. Steinbachs would be allover us. MR. THOMAS-That's right. Dave Kenny would be right there right behind them. MR. CARVIN-I'm telling you, I think we're going to open the door on this one. MR. KARPELES-When is he supposed to rule on this, the judge? MR. MARTIN-I don't know what they set for a date. MR. TURNER-She didn't have her paperwork with her. MR. MARTIN-Well, she submitted it, but he didn't have it. So, she had to resubmit it. MR. KARPELES-But it's probably going to be before our meeting? MR. MARTIN-I don't know. I would imagine it would be, especially if it's the second meeting I would imagine it would be, because it was originally scheduled for last Friday, which was the seventh, and I wouldn't imagine he would go more than a couple of weeks on rescheduling it, because he rules from the bench on this. It's not like they have to go to a jury trial. MR. CARVIN-If Levi's, he's got a closing date coming up and Levi's wants a sign out there. MR. MARTIN-Yes. grant that. I think he considers that request, and he may MR. TURNER-He may grant that. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, the other thing is, if Levi's went to any other shopping mall in Town, shopping center, they'd have the same problem. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Are they going in addition to their store in the mall, or is this a second? MS. CIPPERLY-That whole thing with the million dollars and stuff, it's not my million dollars. MR. THOMAS-That's all he sees is that million dollars. - 21 - MR. MENTER-Well, it's a restriction on earnings earnings to that. question that would of whether it's an undue be typically acceptable, MR. CARVIN-I mean, is the fact that there was no sign out there the reason that it is empty? And that's not the case. That was brought out in the meeting last time. MR. THOMAS-That's right, too. It was. MR. TURNER-They just folded up and left town. MR. CARVIN-So they can't really prove that a sign out front is going to generate even more business. MR. TURNER-The only difference between that is, Levi's says we won't come unless we get a sign out by the road. MR. CARVIN-Well, then Chase comes up and says we're going to pull our Bank out, or K-Mart. I mean, K-Mart tri ed to pull that baloney, right? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Or Wal-Mart, I should say. MS. CIPPERLY-Well, K-Mart did, too, over the curb cut. MR. MARTIN-K-Mart prepared. sign variances are coming in February. Be On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman - 22 -